whats wrong with polygamy? if you are able to find 2 or more people who wants to be spouses with you, why should the government interfere. If you want twice the nagging (if spouses are female), it should be your choice. What you do in your home and it doesn't affect anybody's rights is none of the governments business, and they shouldn't influence how people are able to do this through tax issues, discrimination, criminalizing it, or whatever the government can think of to wield power in your home. The government shouldn't be allowed to dictate/guide/suggest (no matter how minuscule) how you want to live your life when you aren't hurting anybody's rights.

For example, if a doctor says two first cousins can marry and their offspring will not have any genetic defects, why shouldn't they be able to? (this is possible in first cross cousins) In this case its not hurting anybody, why should their rights be infringed.

The Greeks, Romans, and Macedonian empires did not fall because of homosexuality or lack of family values. They fell because of a combination of internal and external events. Each fell in a unique way. Remember, The Macedonians conquered the world with a purely homosexual Army (you shouldn't need to leave camp for anything ).

it is nonsense to relate gay marriage to beastiality and child molestation!

Gee, I thought I was carrying the concept of apples and oranges to the extreme?

laurab wrote:

and perhaps women should be required to wear burkas in this country too. I mean, I wouldn't want to flaunt my sexuality

I was referring to some folks (hetero and homo) that like to grope eachother and suck face in front of everyone in public places. I have seen people practically have intercourse in public. Maybe if they wore a burka nobody would notice? Or maybe I was referring to the display put on during the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco? I don't know of any Hetero Pride Parades with people running around practically naked having simulated sex in the streets. Gays and lesbians do themselves no favors by displaying that behavior openly in the city streets. It is simply a public relations disaster for them! If they did in the privacy of their own home I would have no problem with it!

You already know the answer to this one, but I'll say it anyway. We didn't (and still cannot) define marriage. G-d does.

Hostrauser wrote:

Marriage existed in dozen of societies for thousands of years before Christ came along

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there was religion before Jesus. The Jews received the Torah at Mount Sinai in the year 2448 on the Hebrew calendar (1313 years before Christianity existed).

Hostrauser wrote:

and it wasn't always "one man, one woman"

I'm sorry, have you heard of Adam and Eve? First couple? First marriage? Man and woman? Ringing any bells?

Hostrauser wrote:

Islam approves of polygamy to this day.

You're not (as far as I know) Muslim. Even if you were, this would be an argument for legalizing polygamy, not same-sex marriages.

Hostrauser wrote:

Homosexual relations were NOT frowned upon by many ancient societies: Greeks, Romans, Macedons...

Last I checked, Greeks and Romans are generally considered examples of sensual over-gratification and moral depravity. That doesn't exactly make them the gold star standard.

So because one Rabbi who has a little too much trouble controlling his sexual urges decided to try and rewrite the Torah, I'm supposed to believe him? Did you even read what his publishers said about the book? Here's some of the more exciting quotes:

The Publishers wrote:

"yet they are all based on subjective evaluations that bear no textual confirmation""many of his arguments stretch the truth or omit vital segments of biblical text to reach their desired conclusion""This is not to say that his attempt bears no fruit"

Hostrauser wrote:

I nor anyone else should be forced to abide by rules and restrictions of a religion we are not a member of.

I never said you should. In fact, you're the one that keeps attacking my religious beliefs, not the other way around. I (and most of the other people defending Prop 8) would support a purely civil form of union that bestows purely civil benefits. I won't support anything that threatens my religious rights.

Houstrauser wrote:

I think you're either being disingenuous, are hopelessly inobservant or you lead an extremely sheltered life. I cannot remember EVER going out in public ANYWHERE and not seeing someone holding hands.

Neither. twinmomma asked if my friends hold hands in public. They don't. Believe it or not, most of the people I choose to spend time with have similar views on relationships/PDAs as I do.

Houstrauser wrote:

How very sad. There's a big difference between a loving peck and a make out session. My wife and I kiss in public all the time, and if a one-second peck on the lips bothers you, your social viewpoints are more warped than the Taliban.

Maybe "offend" was too strong of a word. Let me try to explain better: I don't think it's appropriate for people to show their affection in public. I know other people do, and as long as they're not going over the top (ie a "make out session"), I don't let it bother me. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable; no I don't attack them because of it.

twinmomma wrote:

It's disgusting to me that people believe that people would choose to be gay

I never said anyone "chooses to be gay." You can say you were created gay all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you can choose to be straight. Guess what? Psychological science has shown that pedophilia (among other sexual perversions) is a condition people are born with. They didn't choose one day to start liking children, it's part of who they are. And yet, society forces pedophiles to deny their sexual urges. Many of them are quite successful at doing that.

twinmomma wrote:

YOU LITERALLY WROTE INTO OUR CONSTITUTION that I am not as good as a straight person.

When did people decide that it's impossible to disagree with something someone does without hating them? Without considering them to be somehow second class citizens?

I didn't say anything about you. In fact, you sound like you're a pretty dang good mom. You're involved in the community. You're trying to bring your kids up in the best way you know how. All good, admirable, qualities.

_________________It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?

ok... heres all i have to say. according to our constitution this is what all people are allowed...

Quote:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and haveinalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life andliberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuingand obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

so... if getting married is what i want to obtain to make me happy i should be able to do so!but, thanks to the passing of prop 8 i cannot. so that itself makes me a "second class citizen"!!!!

you know by voting yes on prop 8 that you added hate and discrimination into our states constitution. i just hope that the court will overturn this like they did four years ago

whats wrong with polygamy? if you are able to find 2 or more people who wants to be spouses with you, why should the government interfere. If you want twice the nagging (if spouses are female), it should be your choice. What you do in your home and it doesn't affect anybody's rights is none of the governments business, and they shouldn't influence how people are able to do this through tax issues, discrimination, criminalizing it, or whatever the government can think of to wield power in your home. The government shouldn't be allowed to dictate/guide/suggest (no matter how minuscule) how you want to live your life when you aren't hurting anybody's rights.

For example, if a doctor says two first cousins can marry and their offspring will not have any genetic defects, why shouldn't they be able to? (this is possible in first cross cousins) In this case its not hurting anybody, why should their rights be infringed.

The Greeks, Romans, and Macedonian empires did not fall because of homosexuality or lack of family values. They fell because of a combination of internal and external events. Each fell in a unique way. Remember, The Macedonians conquered the world with a purely homosexual Army (you shouldn't need to leave camp for anything ).

There's nothing wrong with polygamy if your culture is based on it. Heck, some cultures practice FRATERNAL polyandry! Marriage is a sociocultural upbringing, and in California marriage has been socially constructed to be between a man and a woman. SOCIALLY constructed. Stop bringing religion into the picture. Your God is not the same as the guy next to you, god can be a cattle for crying out loud. Everyone seems to be missing the functions of marriage: legal parentage, joint property, relationship between families, sexual monopoly, and rights to labor. It a shame that the LGBT community is being treated as second class citizens.

OK guys this debate will never end. The arguing is like republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, jedi and sith. Those who support prop 8 will never agree with those against it and vice versa. There is no middle ground in the debate because there are entirely different moral reasons that back each side up. Some people value one aspect of life much more than another and other people are going to disagree with that, but anyone who expects everyone else to think the same way they do is primed for super disappointment. We're at the point now where the election is over and any recent debate on either side has started to repeat itself, a good sign that this won't be fun for much longer. All of you who contributed to this topic, including those who are gay, have the ability to move on from this and it starts right now.

It's time to put this topic to rest and crown the winners. "THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE! AND WE LET 'EM OFF THE HOOK!"

OK guys this debate will never end. The arguing is like republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, jedi and sith. Those who support prop 8 will never agree with those against it and vice versa. There is no middle ground in the debate because there are entirely different moral reasons that back each side up. Some people value one aspect of life much more than another and other people are going to disagree with that, but anyone who expects everyone else to think the same way they do is primed for super disappointment. We're at the point now where the election is over and any recent debate on either side has started to repeat itself, a good sign that this won't be fun for much longer. All of you who contributed to this topic, including those who are gay, have the ability to move on from this and it starts right now.

It's time to put this topic to rest and crown the winners. "THEY ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE! AND WE LET 'EM OFF THE HOOK!"

I completely disagree. Wasn't it just a short time ago that our great state was issuing marriage licenses to gay couples? Have you seen the protests the past two days? This will reach a middle ground sooner or later...just like women rights and et cetera et cetera.

i just hope that the court will overturn this like they did four years ago

The court doesn't have the right to do anything to the constitution. That means they cannot rule on the constitutionality of an amendment, because, hey, IT'S AN AMENDMENT! And if you're referring to the case recently filed by Equality California claiming that Prop 8 was a revision and not an amendment, you should know that it is misguided.

I'll briefly try to explain the difference between the two. A revision to the constitution means the document is basically being rewritten/redesigned. Current rules for revision are as follows: a constitutional convention may be called (proposed by 2/3 of the legislature, ratified by the people; then the draft constitution must be ratified again by the people) or the legislature can make a direct revision (proposed by 2/3 of the legislature, approved by the people). There is no provision for initiative revision.

An amendment means a portion of the constitution is being changed. Current rules for amendment are as follows: the legislature can propose an amendment by 2/3 and submit it to the people for approval, or the people can initiate an amendment by obtaining signatures equaling 8% of voters in the prior gubernatorial election and submit it to the people for approval.

So how do we know what the difference between an amendment and revision is? The constitution is silent on the issue, so the courts have done their best to decide. There are two big CA cases dealing with this, Livermore V Waite, and Amador Valley Joint Union High School District V State Board of Equalization.

The very term ‘constitution’ implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the other hand, the significance of the term ‘amendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.

So, we know that an amendment shouldn't change the purpose for which the constitution was framed. Prop 8 doesn't do that. In context, this case would have moved the state capital from Sacramento to San Jose upon condition that San Jose donated 10 acres and $1 million to the state. The court found that the condition modified the purpose of amendment as defined by the constitution by adding an additional step to the approval of the amendment (the donation by San Jose).

The Supreme Court of California, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District V State Board of Equalization (22 Cal.3d 208), 1978 wrote:

This fact suggests that the term “revision” in section XVIII originally was intended to refer to a substantial alteration of the entire Constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions.

A revision deals with a substantial alteration of the constitution. As an example of such an alteration, the court cites McFadden V Jordan (32 Cal.2d 330, 1948)

The Supreme Court of California wrote:

In McFadden, we struck down an initiative measure which would have added 21,000 words to our then existing 55,000-word constitution. We held that the initiative was “revisory rather than amendatory in nature,” because of the “far reaching and multifarious substance of the measure . . . ” (p. 332, 196 P.2d p. 788) which dealt with such varied and diverse subjects as retirement pensions, gambling, taxes, oleomargarine, healing arts, civic centers, senate reapportionment, fish and game, and surface mining. We noted that the proposal would have repealed or substantially altered at least 15 of the 25 articles which then comprised the Constitution.

Prop 8 DEFINITELY doesn't meet those criteria. If it doesn't meat the qualitative or quantitative test established by our Supreme Court for differentiating between an amendment and a revision, then Prop 8 is not a revision. It is a legally passed amendment to the California constitution. Opponents are simply trying to undermine the democratic process by overturning it.

_________________It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?

the posts keep getting longer, but there is still no argument that justifies taking away a persons rights who has not done anything wrong by the letter of the LAW (not your bible).

And for those with modesty issues, it is ignorant to use that excuse when you know full well that the people you are talking about at "gay pride" are a small percentage. How many straight people go to swingers parties? cheat on their spouses? Some, but we straight folks aren't defined by that small percentage. You see a guy in chaps and suddenly they are the poster child for gay america.

Have you been to a gay pride festival?? I'm guessing no. 99% of the folk there are...wait for it.... FULLY DRESSED!!! And not displaying any pda unless, dancing and celebrating is pda. I hug my friends when I see them. Is that an inappropriate pda too? And we don't have "hetero festivals" because we have the freedom to celebrate who we are every day without fear of prejudice. No one tells us we can do what we want, as long as no one can see us.

Now go back and read all your posts and replace the word gay for the word black.

Outrageous? sure is, as is taking away the right of two CONSENTING ADULTS (for those who want to throw out child or animal molesters) to be MARRIED (not something like married but give it a different name)

One more thing to ponder all you "marriage protectors" Gay marriage has been allowed for the last 5 months. Has your marriage suffered because of it? Not mine. Mine is just suffering from our horrible economy.

I'm bowing out at this point, but I want to say please don't stop thinking about this issue. It's easy when it doesn't affect you to just say "I don't want to talk about this anymore." But it is my reality, every day. Don't forget us. Fight for us.

To paraphrase Martin Niemoeller, you may be the next one they come for. And who will stand up for you?

So, apparently, most of the people this message is targeted at won't ever see it... but...

You're following the most counter-productive line of reasoning I've ever heard. Rather than coming to the table with a "bigot" - one who has repeatedly emphasized that he thinks there's a solution agreeable to both parties (ie civil unions for all, marriage by religious institutions only) - you've all chosen to pretend his positions don't matter. I mean, wait "for us all to die off"? Really? That's mature.

If you're complaining about my moral arguments on homosexuality, then don't make the moral arguments. I'm quite capable of keeping my personal moral views out of the argument (you'll note I've only mentioned them when attacked). Are you?

_________________It's 5:00... do you know where your ancestors came from?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum